Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Analysis_of_Richard_Damon=E2=80=99s_Responses_to_Flibble?=
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 12:12:07 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <100esl7$1hs8c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <stoWP.617520$lZjd.379219@fx05.ams4> <c54ccda944d953918123fa0244be84b714d088ca@i2pn2.org> <8NqWP.1267256$4AM6.1131124@fx17.ams4> <3772fd1815ff6ca4eae63e1ed8e9f0e6910c6901@i2pn2.org> <2_qWP.692099$wBt6.405334@fx15.ams4> <b6676fb1673f76e67e34f466608e3924ec989a9c@i2pn2.org> <O5rWP.617661$lZjd.134807@fx05.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 11:12:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f4381c44869abbb66b062db77a9c084";
	logging-data="1634572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WxC+kQctuhGuZv2HOm66d"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1dg57RRPWdloEJSgc80xnkuJ7rQ=

On 2025-05-18 20:07:10 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> On Sun, 18 May 2025 16:03:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> On 5/18/25 3:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 15:49:33 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/18/25 3:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 15:19:38 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/18/25 1:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4. Stack Overflow as a Semantic Signal
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Damon argues that stack overflow represents a failed computation:
>>>>>>>> "...it just got the wrong answer."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Flibble’s view is different:
>>>>>>> - A stack overflow (or crash) isn’t failure.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sure it is. A program that fails to complete and give the correct
>>>>>> answer has just failed to give an answer.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you want to define "stack overflow" as an "I don't know" result,
>>>>>> fine, but first you have to define that this is a "valid" result.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No it isn't. Why? Because the stack overflow a property of the
>>>>> simulation environment (the fact that the SHD has finite resources)
>>>>> and NOT a property of the program, P, being analysed per se.  P is
>>>>> NOT halting, it is the SHD that is halting due to the detection of
>>>>> infinite recursion on the part of P.  It is perfectly valid for the
>>>>> SHD to treat this as NON- HALTING as far as P is concerned.
>>>>> 
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>> 
>>>> No, it is a property of the decider. If your "environment" is
>>>> inadiquite, it just shows you aren't using a proper environment.
>>> 
>>> The SHD and the simulation environment are on in the same.
>> 
>> And thus a failure of the environment is a failure of the SHD.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> Soemtimes, we will talk about a stack over-flow as not being a
>>>> failure,
>>>> but also not a success, just an indication that the environment is
>>>> insufficent to run this case.
>>>> 
>>>> You are just showing you lack of understanding of the system you are
>>>> talking about.
>>> 
>>> You are just showing your lack of understanding of the system I am
>>> talking about.
>>> 
>>> /Flibble
>> 
>> No, it seems you don't understand what you are talking about, or that
>> you have just failed to define what you are talking about.
>> 
>> I have seen no system built up from the ground up, only thought about
>> things to change without defining HOW to effect those changes.
> 
> I don't have to create a system to be able to reason about it.  You are
> just wrong and fractally so.

If you don't create at least those parts that you "reason" about you
don't reason.

-- 
Mikko